The Elvis documentary on HBO

When most people think of Elvis Presley today, they think of this cartoonish character – a walrus with dyed jet black hair stuffed into a laughable white sequined jumpsuit with bell-bottoms attempting karate moves on stage while slurring songs he doesn’t remember. They think of the guy who used to eat entire chocolate cakes and shoot television screens whenever Robert Goulet was on. Or maybe they think back to the younger, strikingly-handsome former teen idol who starred in dozens of idiotic forgettable movies where he sang such classics as “Do the Clam.”

To me that’s one of many tragedies of Elvis Presley; the biggest is that he died at 42.

But you forget that he was an absolute trailblazer, that he single-handedly changed popular culture, and that he was a phenomenon the likes of which we haven’t seen since. He really was the King of Rock n’ Roll.

Happily, there is a new two-part Elvis Presley documentary that is extraordinary and really profiles the genius and the impact of this once-in-a-lifetime artist. Yes, there have been dozens of documentaries on Elvis, not to mention biopics, biographies, tribute shows, and radio documentaries. But I’ve never seen one that dealt so much into his music, his influences, and how he put it all together to create something utterly new and magic.

What you learn in this documentary is that Elvis didn’t just fall into this success. You see a new side of him – smart, observant, driven, and tireless. The impression he always gave off was that of a polite “aw shucks” country boy. But you find that he was very aware of exactly what he was doing and how it would further his career. I was very impressed.

His life was not charmed. He suffered loss, made a Faustian deal with Colonel Tom Parker who became his Svengali. Elvis made gobs of money but ultimately it was at the expense of his art and soul. The price of fame became isolation, drugs, excess, a tarnished legacy, and eventually an early death.

This documentary takes you back to the purity of his early career with wonderful insightful commentary by performers like Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty (himself a tragedy).

I’m sure that anyone watching this program, regardless of age, will no longer think of Elvis Aaron Presley as a joke. And everyone should watch it just for that reason.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

EP71: Aloha OY

Ken shares his recent Hawaiian adventure, filled with all the usual Levine comic mishaps, celebrity sightings, and restaurant recommendations. It’s like being there without the sunburn or shark attack.

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Come see my play reading FREE

Hey Angelinos, I'm having a reading of my new full-length play, OUR TIME this Friday at 4:00 in Santa Monica.  It's a loosely-based autobiographical comedy about four young people breaking into the world of comedy in 1975 LA.   There are still some tickets left and they're FREE. 

Interested?  Email me at

HollywoodLevine@outlook.com

... for details.  First come, first served.   Lotsa laughs.   Come join us. 

The FRASIER/AVENGERS connection

Reader “Luke” pointed me to an article where the writers of THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR said the inspiration for the banter between Iron Man and Dr. Strange was the interplay between Frasier and his brother Niles on FRASIER. I found that very flattering until I read the article.

First off, let me say I heard the two writers, Stephen McFeely & Christopher Markus, speak at the WGA screening of AVENGERS. They both seem like very bright, cool individuals.

So I don’t know if my issue is with them or how what they said was reported in the article. Here’s the quote from the article:

“Frasier was influential in our decision to put Stark and Strange together,” said co-writer Stephen McFeely in an interview with Yahoo Entertainment. He revealed that their interplay with each other was based on Dr. Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer) and his just-as-obnoxious brother, Dr. Niles Crane (David Hyde Pierce).

My problem is this: I wouldn’t characterize either Frasier or Niles as “obnoxious.” Would you? A little arrogant perhaps and a tad full of themselves, but hardly “obnoxious.”

Also, Frasier and Niles were essentially allies. In AVENGERS, Iron Man and Dr. Strange are no fans of each other. They’re sparring partners, not bantering brothers. Yes, at times the Frasier boys have a tiff, but I would never classify them as “opponents.”

I guess what bothers me, and again I don’t know who exactly used the term “obnoxious,” but FRASIER tried really hard to give its characters dimension and give its relationships depth. So to see Frasier & Niles reduced to a one-word description --- that I don’t even believe is accurate – was a little disappointing.

Still, it’s nice that McFeely & Markus were fans of FRASIER. Too bad the show isn’t still going. We would have loved to have Thanos call in to Frasier’s radio show.

THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR -- my review

If you love the Marvel Comic universe then AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR will be action porn to you. Hundreds of your favorite Marvel superheroes team up in many combinations on many planets and worlds to give you a 2 ½ hour montage of every CGI comic book fight scene you’ve ever seen. Everyone gets thrown around like rag dolls, everyone gets flung twenty yards into a concrete building. At least five times.  Thank God no one gets hurt. 

If you’re locked in to all these characters and the Marvel legend I’m sure it’s great fun to see them all interact. It’s the ultimate All-Star game. I’ve only seen some of the previous movies so there were holes in my knowledge of the saga. Captain America now has a beard and wears black? Did I miss three sequels?

For all the special effects, explosions, epic battle scenes, and CGI animation for me the best part of the movie was the occasional funny quip. There were some great lines, and as opposed to the (competing) DC universe, Marvel doesn’t take itself so seriously. I love that.

And I appreciate that they attempted to build in emotional moments and tried to create reasons for vengeance besides just the standard “We have to stop the powerful supervillain who wants to control the galaxy,” but God it was overkill. And as a result, for me, some of these action and battle sequences were just mind-numbing. No one gets injured really so it’s just transformers pummeling each other. I've now seen it a thousand times in hundreds of movies. 

I can almost hear some of you now. “Levine’s old and just doesn’t like Marvel movies.” Not true. As readers of this blog will attest, I loved THE BLACK PANTHER, think it’s the best movie of the year so far. I really enjoyed the first couple of CAPTAIN AMERICA movies. Same with IRONMAN, ANT MAN, and they now have the best Spider-Man.  I even loved the AGENT CARTER TV series. But this installment felt unnecessarily long and prone to excess.

I know it’s getting terrific reviews, fans seem to love it, and it’s racking up boxoffice gold, but am I the only one who wasn’t completely enamored by this film? I know to say anything disparaging about THE AVENGERS is like spitting on the cross and admitting you’re 150 years old, but again I wonder, is it just me? I dunno. Maybe if they swapped out Mighty Mouse for Vision I would have liked the movie better.

The untitled diverse multi-cultural multi-camera family pilot

Every year there seems to be a trend in network comedy pilots. This year it’s strange blended families filled with as much diversity as the projects will allow.

Lots of single parents with complications. Lots of large families in various combinations. Lots of ethnic families. And then there are blended ethnic families.

There are unlikely pairings of single parents that “become” families. There are blended cultures trying to become families.

And of course there’s the family member who moved away but now must return to the family.

And most of them are “loosely based on the writer or star’s life.”

Many sound ridiculously complicated or with large casts. A few have narrators. That always scares me. When you have so many characters that you can’t let their behavior describe them, when you have to tell the audience who they are and what their place in the series is that always signals trouble to me.

A number of them are clearly just vehicles for their stars. The family premise is just an afterthought.

Nothing sounded particularly original.

Which is why, execution is so critical. For all I know four or five of these pilots are great. They’re smartly written, perfectly cast, with fresh looks at familiar situations. It could be a banner crop of pilots, or another year of 9JKL’s.

Upfronts are next week and we’ll know soon enough. At least it’s nice to see that multi-cams appear to be back in favor (until none of them are picked up).

The irony is I don’t think you could sell FRIENDS today. Six white kids who go through their twenties together – not a chance.

It's just COMEDY, people

Okay, so I've been ranting about the same thing, but Bill Maher does it better and with funny graphics, and of course he's angrier than me. Worth watching.

Hawaii Five-18

Aloha!  Just got back from a few weeks on Maui.  Was gone before the volcano and earthquakes.  My heart goes out to everyone there.  Anyway, thought I would share some photos.  I'll do my traditional crazy travelogue on my podcast, which drops the middle of the week.  But in the meantime...

My adorable granddaughter, Becca.

Black sand beach

I forget.  This might be a sunset.

Good advice, wouldn't you say?

In case I want to swim to another island

Nightfall in the Blue Lagoon

More Becca, more eating

This is the kind of stuff I post on Instagram

We took a submarine ride.  Dive! Dive!

Not for the claustrophobic

135 feet below.  Notice Sponge Bob.

Much better name than Starbucks

Gotta go to a tacky luau

Not a lot of takers for the crap they sell

But someone paid $38,000 for THIS.

Friday Questions

Who’s ready for some Friday Questions?

KevinC starts us off:

We've been binge-watching Cheers and noticed in Season 9 there was a cold open where Rebecca and Woody had on the same outfit as in the episode before. How often were the cold opens moved around (timing issues, etc.) or did they just shoot the one for the next episode and didn't think of wardrobe?

We moved the teasers around a lot. It depended on the time. We would often swap teasers. The only good thing about the teasers (I hated them) was that they were independent of the story. So if we needed one that was 2:05 and the one we shot that week was 4:00 we easily could trade.

Mel Agar queries:

Are two-part episodes planned to be two-parters or do they grow organically out of a story that's just too big to be contained in 22-ish minutes?

Usually they grow from single episodes. And most of the times they are really 1 ½ parters. Too much story for one episode; not enough for two. Often there is a little padding that goes into two-parters.

But I used to love it when David Isaacs and I wrote a script and it was just too full so they made it a two-parter. BAM! We got paid twice.

My favorite two-parters that we did (not that anybody asked) were “Finally Parts 1 & 2” for CHEERS and “Adventures in Paradise Parts 1 & 2 for FRASIER.

From Dr Loser:

What show (or film, or other engagement) was the best you can remember for catered food?

That’s an easy one. EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. Amazing food. A Vegas buffet.

 JUST SHOOT ME was pretty awesome too. When they have an omelet station, you know you’re in for some good eats.

The Mess Tent food on MASH that everyone in the 4077 bitched about -- was actually excellent.  

And Peter Aparicio rounds it out.

Can you identify any actors/actresses who began to act more like their character in their personal life (especially those who played the same character for many years)?

I would have to say Hawkeye became more like Alan Alda and Hot Lips became more like Loretta Swit on MASH. Watch a season one episode and a season ten episode and you’ll see quite a transformation.

What’s your Friday Question?  Just leave it in the comments section.  Thanks much!

An interesting ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT development

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT'S 4th season was on Netflix.  It began airing a few years ago.  But it was a slightly different format than the one it employed during its years on Fox.  Since it was hard to get all the actors back together at the same time, the Netflix version followed individual characters and not the group as a whole.   The reaction was, shall we say, less than glowing?

Now comes word that the show's creator Mitch Hurwitz is "re-mixing" the season.  He's trying to make it more of an ensemble show.  The plotlines were so complicated anyway that the re-mix can't be any more confusing than the original version.

Will it work?  I dunno.  But it's an interesting experiment.

However, I have a question.

How do you now determine writers' credits?   Every episode has to have a writing credit.  And if Mitch cobbles together pieces from four episodes into one, the writers of all those episodes deserve credit.

And probably money.

I assume they have to be paid for the new re-mix version.

And since the WGA has rules as to the number of writers allowed per episode, they'd need a waiver and they'd need to pay each writer at least the equivalent of half an episode.  At least that is my understanding.

This is a sticky issue because to my knowledge no one has ever attempted something like this.  I don't believe there is a precedent.

So something will have to be worked out, and I'd be very interested to see just what that resolution is.  According to several readers, the episodes drop tomorrow. 

Stay tuned. 

EP70: How To Write Material That SELLS

Ken’s guest is Blair Richwood, a longtime feature development person and book editor.   They discuss what it takes for you to write a screenplay, pilot, or book that sells.   Also tips on pitching, what studios and Netflix are looking for, mistakes to avoid, and navigating the literary and Hollywood world. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Hello, I'm listening...

I’m always in awe of those technicians who set up the acoustics for major theatres like the Disney Hall in Los Angeles. It’s such a baffling science. Sound travels in mysterious ways and patterns. A singer can stand on a stage in a cavernous Broadway theatre, sing without a microphone, and you hear her clearly in the last row of the balcony, which is in a different zip code. And then there’s a lovely 99-seat theatre in the San Fernando Valley with almost stadium seating and fantastic sightlines but you can’t hear a damn thing in the upper five rows.

Technicians use special panels to enhance the sound, to deaden the sound, to channel the sound, combat echo, filter out unwanted sound. They construct nooks and crannies, place walls strategically – I don’t know how they do it.

Why is one restaurant so loud you can’t hear yourself think and a similar restaurant in a similar space is quiet and comfortable? This keeps me awake at night.

The reason I bring up this topic (besides looking for something else to talk about after 5200+ posts) is that I have a weird acoustic quirk at my house. My house sits back from the street up an incline. If I’m in one of the upstairs rooms that fronts the street and two people are talking on the sidewalk across the street I can hear them as if they were right under my window. It’s bizarre. They’re maybe ten yards away, but they might as well be in the same room. Meanwhile, order a sandwich at any Subway and the person behind the counter can’t hear you.

I find this phenomenon fascinating. Do you have any audio quirks where you live or work? And seriously, how hard is it to hear “A BMT with NO CHEESE?”

The next great comedy writer

iPhones try so hard to be intuitive.

There of course is Auto-Correct, which is very hit and miss. We’ve all sent texts we regret due to not proofing this handy feature. (Make sure you spell "can't" correctly.) 

But there is also this toolbar right above the keyboard that tries to anticipate your next word. When it’s right it’s very helpful. You just tap it once instead of having to type out the whole word. But it’s also wildly off base much of the time. And that’s certainly to be expected. Your iPhone can’t read your mind (yet).

When I type out texts or emails I find myself now always scanning this toolbar, trying to surmise where the phone thinks I might be going with this sentence. And what it thinks of me that I might go down some of these wacky paths.

But then I had an idea. An experiment. What if this feature happens to have a sense of humor? What if it doesn’t just “think;” it thinks funny? I know that Siri is programmed to say some smartass remarks.

So what if I wrote a script on the iPhone? I could just write in the set up and maybe it would provide the punchline. Wouldn’t that be nice when you’re stuck for a joke?

If this works, keep it to yourself. You don’t want EVERY comedy writer to know the wonder of Siri. But in this new modern techno-world, the next great Neil Simon could be in your pocket. Try it, and let me know how it goes. Good luck!

Reporting from the trenches

Here’s a Friday Question that became an entire post.

Covarr asks:

Have you ever made substantial changes to a script based on input from an actor? Respectfulness aside (I would hope and assume that one is obvious), what factors influence the extent to which you heed their concerns?

Yes. In some cases it’s because the star is just difficult and wields the power to force wholesale changes. In practically ALL of those instances, the resulting script is worse. Or, at best, lateral.

I’ve been relatively lucky. I haven’t written for the more notorious of the monsters.

There have been times when an actor’s reluctance to do the script as written comes with a good reason. And those generally result in better scripts. We had a script on MASH where Mike Farrell took issue ethically with something we were asking BJ to do. We used that argument and did an extensive rewrite. The end result was a much more layered episode.

Look, as a showrunner I always assume that during the course of a season there are going to be a few scripts that are just snake bitten. We’ll be rewriting late into the wee hours night after night. The problem is you don’t know going in which scripts those will be. (If you did you would have addressed the problems before it went into production.) So if there’s a particularly hard week based on an actor balking at something and he’s right, that’s just the way it goes. I never resent the actor for that. We’re rewriting because we didn’t get it right the first time.

But here’s what really pisses me off: Actors objecting to something in the script and trying to justify it as a character issue when in truth it’s a vanity issue. The actress doesn’t think the actor we’ve cast to play her boyfriend is attractive enough for her. But she won’t say that. She’ll say her character wouldn’t date this person for some bullshit reason. We end up getting into this argument about motivation and the character when we KNOW that’s not really what this is about at all. And we can’t just call her on it. We can’t say, “The real issue is your ego. You think people will find you less attractive if you’re with this guy instead of George Clooney. You don’t give a shit about the character or the show. You just care about how YOU look.” So instead we engage in this fifteen-minute discussion of nonsense.

At the end of the day it’s all about who’s the most powerful person in the room. And there’s a great quote from the brilliant late producer, Steven Bochco regarding actors.

“The first year they work for you, the second year you all work together, and the third year you work for them.”

Thanks, Mom

My mother, Marilyn, would have been 90 today. She passed away several years ago. A day doesn't go by when I don't miss her and think about her. In addition to everything else she did for me, she is responsible for my career in television.

My partner, David and I were writing spec scripts, going nowhere, not even getting read at most shows. Then one day my mother found herself playing golf with Gordon Mitchell, one of the story editors of THE JEFFERSON. Like any good mom she said her son was a brilliant young writer and would he consider reading a script? Frankly, I’m a little surprised she didn’t have a copy in her bag but still. As a favor to her, Gordon did read our spec, liked it, and to our amazement, gave us our first assignment. In so many ways my mother has been a true angel in my life.  And never once asked for her 10%.   Happy Birthday, Mom.  I love you. 

I hate PowerPoint

Imagine you had to give a presentation to a fairly large group. The topic is something you know something about. The quarterly report. The latest advances in merkins. Whatever.  And while you're delivering this presentation you also have to put on rock climbing gear. Bulky jacket,boots, lacing up the heavy boots, attaching one or two harnesses, stocking up on flares and picks. All this while you're analyzing T.S. Eliot poetry.

Well for the most part, that's what it's like when you do a presentation with PowerPoint. Ive been to a number of conferences lately where good speakers with interesting topics were derailed by PowerPoint presentations. They spent half their talks fumbling around with slides. At first the audience is patient and has a little empathy. But after five minutes you want to scream, "Hey, numnuts! They're friggin' bullet points. Who gives a shit?! Just talk!".

PowerPoint and similar programs kill more lectures than they help. Yes, if you need visuals, fine. Let's say you're explaining how Facebook works or just "what is pornography?"  Slides would help -- in some cases the bigger, the better.

But now you can easily make graphs and graphics to just underscore the text of your talk. 68% of homeowners have spice racks.  "I don't believe you. Oh wait, I'm now looking at a slide of a spice rack and underneath it says 68% of homeowners have these. Okay, you sold me!".

The truth is speakers now use PowerPoint as a crutch. They think the can jazz up their presentations with visual aids. All too often though this results in technical snafus, fumbling around, the wrong slides, and takes the speaker right out of any rhythm. And most of the time the slides are boring, hard to read, and unnecessary.

Some people think if they don't arm themselves with PowerPoint that the audience will think they're unprepared. That's bullshit!

As a speaker, your job is to communicate. Talk to us. Share ideas, if it's a topic you're excited about let us see that.  You don't have to be the worlds greatest speaker. But your genuine enthusiasm will sell your message. Not a dizzying display of pie charts.

A helpful tip that will mean more than a slide proclaiming "4 warning signs of gum decay" is to start your talk with a story. People love stories and it puts them at ease. People think you have to begin with a joke -- the great woody Allen intro: " I'm reminded of the incestuous farmer's daughter...". No. You don't have to do that. If you got a great joke and you're good at delivering jokes then yeah, kill 'em. But a brief story, preferably personal, will achieve the same goal of disarming your crowd.

Speak with passion. Again, you don't have to be Billy Graham or Zig Zigler. But make us understand why the topic is interesting to you. In this case, a well placed word is worth a thousand pictures.

Friday Questions

Closing out another month with NEW Friday Questions. What’s yours?

Dave Wrighteous is up first.

Do you think, in this era of network TV struggling to stay relevant with the rise of cable and premium channels like HBO, that it could/would be a good idea to rerun shows on prime time network stations? It's cheap (no actors, writers etc. to hire and the cheap to make reality shows have proven networks like cheap content!) Popular shows that have been done to death in syndication wouldn't fly, but maybe some shows that never found an audience and were cancelled may find a new life and audience… like Big Wave Dave's!"

No, as much as I’d like BIG WAVE DAVE’S to make a triumphant comeback.

In today’s world networks have to be more competitive, not less. Rerunning even their hit shows tend to be a liability. For decades networks would just fill the summer months with reruns. Their ratings would suffer but all networks suffered equally. But now, with 1000 other channels, many offering original programming, networks can no longer afford the luxury of coasting.

And as for putting reruns or former cast-off shows on during those periods where networks traditionally offer original fare, that would be tantamount to waving a white flag and surrendering. Yes, they’d save money but “penny wise and pound foolish.”

Roger Owen Green asks:

Has the proliferation of these old shows coming back to life pleased you, bothered you, or it depends? Does having the bulk of the original cast make a difference?

And, given the frequency of these, would you now suggest that an aspiring writer consider a script for a Cheers reunion or All in the Family, The Next Generation (Meathead and Gloria's kid is more conservative than Archie!)?

What this new trend of rebooting screams to me is that networks are just out of ideas and will try anything. Old shows are a known entity so at least offer some value in initial sampling.

Ultimately some will succeed and others won’t and after a few years this trend will run its course.

Remember there was a period when Hollywood studios were doing movie versions of TV shows? BEWITCHED, THE BRADY BUNCH, BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, GET SMART, MAN FROM UNCLE, ADAMS FAMILY, etc. A few like ADAMS FAMILY were fun but most fizzled out. That’s what I think will happen here.

Having the original casts back is both a plus and minus. They’re the people you are comfortable with in the roles. But I fear in some instances their advanced ages will be disconcerting. In most cases, it’s better to remember these shows and characters in their original form.

By all means DO NOT do specs of old shows having reunions.  It's a stunt that will backfire.  If you want to do a spec ROSEANNE or WILL & GRACE do the current version.

From Mr. Hollywood:

Could you do MASH today in today's political climate?? In today's "TV climate"?

MASH benefited greatly by the country being in a very unpopular war and a similar war to the one fought in Korea. We don’t have that now.

As for the political climate – we’re so polarized now that the numbers MASH got are impossible to achieve today.

ROSEANNE is this huge “hit” getting 14,000,000 viewers. MASH routinely got numbers that are higher than today’s Academy Awards. You’re not going to find 30,000,000 Americans to agree on anything these days.

So, to answer your question – no.

And finally, from Mark Solomon:

Ken, I just watched, on Antenna TV, a wonderful episode of "Wings", written by you and David, in which Frasier and Lillith Crane are in Nantucket in order for Frasier to conduct a self-help seminar on the island with paying attendees.

I'm curious about the genesis of that cross-over episode. Was it that NBC execs were seeking to bring the cachet of the higher rated "Cheers" to an episode of "Wings", or did you and David initiate the idea, perhaps knowing that your association with "Cheers" would make it likely that all the parties involved would be willing and eager to make the episode happen?

Thanks for another terrific episode.

Thank YOU.

I don’t recall the exact details but networks are always looking for stunts, and one is crossover shows. The creators of WINGS, Peter Casey, David Lee, and David Angell were veterans of CHEERS and both shows were produced by Paramount, so a lot of obstacles were eliminated going in.

I suspect one of the WINGS guys floated the idea by Kelsey and Bebe of guesting and they were agreeable to it. Once the deals were set, Peter, David & David approached David Isaacs and me to write it. We were writing and consulting on both CHEERS and WINGS at the time so we were the logical choice.

We broke the story with Peter, David, and David and wrote the script. I seem to recall that most of our first draft remained. I was very pleased with the final result.

How’s this for trivia? David Isaacs and I are the only writers to write Frasier Crane in three series. Like Joe DiMaggio’s hitting streak, I don’t think that record will ever be broken. If only it meant something.

The pilot process -- where everything currently stands

This is nervous time for pilot producers/creators/agents/actors – pretty much anyone associated with the many pilots currently under consideration for a fall or midseason network pick up.

Decisions will be made as soon as next week and production teams are scrambling to assemble and ready their pilots for presentation.

It’s also the time when rumors are flying left and right – which show is hot, which show is dead, which dead show is suddenly hot again? Industry websites are buzzing with speculation.

The big X-Factor, of course, is testing. Studios now pre-test their pilots in anticipation of the networks audience testing. Those test results completely shuffle the deck.

There are also existing shows currently on the bubble. Some have gotten tryouts in different time slots to see if their fortunes improve. Others simply wait to see how well the pilots test. If your network has a strong slate of pilots you’re probably dead. If the development season is a flop you might get a reprieve.

Add to the mix commitments, network needs, how many holes in the schedule need to be filled, compatible shows to fill an hour, pressure to increase diversity, ownership of shows, and license fee costs and you get a pretty good idea of the craziness that lies ahead for those with a dog in this race.

And as super-agent Bob Broder once said, “Everything turns to shit over Mississippi” – meaning show that the network loved while screening in LA often lose their luster once the test results are in as they fly to New York for the final decisions.

Best of luck to all the contenders. And I always leave you with my quote for the Upfronts process. “The winners go to work and the losers go to Hawaii.”

Aloha.

EP69: Celebrity Fist Fights

Ken tells stories about various altercations he has had in his career – none were his fault. Okay, maybe one. He also plays some fascinating radio clips and shares with you some celebrity fistfights that you won’t believe. 

Listen to the Hollywood & Levine podcast!

Who is the guy with that weird laugh?

Once again I'm slipping in a ten-year-old Friday Questions post.  This has been a crazy month, I need a bit of a break, and I bet 90% of you are reading this for the first time.  So stagger back down memory lane with me. 

Here are answers to some of your Friday questions.

velvet goldmine wondered this last week:

I know that even shows filled before a live audience sometimes used to "sweeten" them with recorder laughs. But there's this one man's laugh that you hear on TONS of shows from the 70s, from MTM to Taxi. You know the one I mean? First there's a startled "Haw!" as the setup gets underway, then this extended "Haw Haw Haw..." when the joke reaches its zenith.

Why in the world would they keep using this familiar, even annoying laugh? And if by chance it was the same guy at all the tapings -- say, a superfan, or a self-impressed writer -- why wasn't he muzzled?

This is less of an answer than a confirmation. As several people correctly mentioned in the comments section, the distinctive laugh you hear belongs to James L. Brooks (pictured above). It’s less annoying when you realize it’s genuine. And when he laughs at something I’ve said or written, it’s sheer music.

There are also two very distinctive laughers on the last seven years of CHEERS. Phoef Sutton and Bill Steinkellner. I can’t describe them but watch any episode from those middle and later years and you’ll know what I mean.

Jim Stickford asks:

What's the procedure for deciding what particular line to use. I saw Carl Reiner in an interview years ago and he said one of the reasons he stayed in the writer's room for Your Show of Shows was that he could type, which was a bid deal in the days before computers and photocopiers. When the writers threw out lines, Carl picked the one he liked best and typed it in.

Is there a procedure? Is it decided by the show runner? Do you vote on it?

It’s either the showrunner or the person designated to run the room in the showrunner’s absence. Someone has to have the final say otherwise you have the scene in GODZILLA with all the people running through the streets crazed. Although, wait a minute. It's like that normally.

From Jaime J. Weinman:

Do you prefer writing sitcom episodes with a tag before the closing credits (M*A*S*H) or episodes that have no tags and end the episode with the second act (Cheers)?

Also what are the reasons for having tags or not having tags: is it usually network policy (like in the '80s when almost none of NBC's sitcoms used tags), or is it sometimes the showrunner's decision?

Tags are those little two minute scenes at the end of sitcoms. They serve the purpose of rewarding the viewer for staying through the last spot break. Some shows have them, others don’t. It depends on their format and needs of their network. There seem to be fewer today as networks are going more to a three-act format -- again, all in the cause of audience maintenance; none in the cause of better storytelling.

I MUCH prefer writing tags to the teasers we employed on CHEERS. At least with tags you could draw upon content established in the episode and just do a call-back. Teasers were completely independent of the story that followed. The Charles Brothers thought it would be novel and help establish the world of the bar. They were right of course, but teasers were a bitch to pull out of our ass every week.

What’s your question???